App Climate change and energy The Spark

Mar 1 2025

The best time to stop a battery fire? Before it starts.

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Flames erupted last Tuesday amid the burned wreckage of the battery storage facility at Moss Landing Power Plant. It happened after a major fire there burned for days and then went quiet for weeks.

The reignition is yet another reminder of how difficult fires in lithium-ion batteries can be to deal with. They burn hotter than other fires—and even when it looks as if the danger has passed, they can reignite.

As these batteries become more prevalent, first responders are learning a whole new playbook for what to do when they catch fire, as a new story from our latest print magazine points out. Let’s talk about what makes battery fires a new challenge, and what it means for the devices, vehicles, and grid storage facilities that rely on them.

“Fires in batteries are pretty nasty,” says Nadim Maluf, CEO and cofounder of Qnovo, a company that develops battery management systems and analytics.

While first responders might be able to quickly douse a fire in a gas-powered vehicle with a hose, fighting an EV fire can require much more water. Often, it’s better to just let battery fires burn out on their own, as Maya Kapoor outlines in her story for MIT Technology Review. And as one expert pointed out in that story, until a battery is dismantled and recycled, “it’s always going to be a hazard.”

One very clear example of that is last week’s reignition at Moss Landing, the world’s biggest battery storage project. In mid-January, a battery fire destroyed a significant part of a 300-megawatt grid storage array.

The site has been quiet for weeks, but residents in the area got an alert last Tuesday night urging them to stay indoors and close windows. Vistra, the owner of Moss Landing Power Plant, didn’t respond to written questions for this story but said in a public statement that flames were spotted at the facility on Tuesday and the fire had burned itself out by Wednesday morning.

Even after a battery burns, some of the cells can still hold charge, Maluf says, and in a large storage installation on the grid, there can be a whole lot of stored energy that can spark new blazes or pose a danger to cleanup crews long after the initial fire.

Vistra is currently in the process of de-linking batteries at Moss Landing, according to a website the company set up to share information about the fire and aftermath. The process involves unhooking the electrical connections between batteries, which reduces the risk of future problems. De-linking work began on February 22 and should take a couple of weeks to complete.

Even as crews work to limit future danger from the site, we still don’t know why a fire started at Moss Landing in the first place. Vistra’s site says an investigation is underway and that it’s working with local officials to learn more.

Battery fires can start when cells get waterlogged or punctured, but they can also spark during normal use, if a small manufacturing defect goes unnoticed and develops into a problem.

Remember when Samsung Galaxy Note phones were banned from planes because they kept bursting into flames? That was the result of a manufacturing defect that could lead to short-circuiting in some scenarios. (A short-circuit basically happens when the two separate electrodes of a battery come into contact, allowing an uncontrolled flow of electricity that can release heat and start fires.)

And then there’s the infamous Chevy Bolt—those vehicles were all recalled because of fire risk. The issues were also traced back to a manufacturing issue that caused cells to short-circuit.

One piece of battery safety is designing EV packs and large stationary storage arrays so that fires can be slowed down and isolated when they do occur. There have been major improvements in fire suppression measures in recent years, and first responders are starting to better understand how to deal with battery fires that get out of hand.

Ultimately, though, preventing fires before they occur is the goal. It’s a hard job. Identifying manufacturing defects can be like searching for a needle in a haystack, Maluf says. Battery chemistry and cell design are complicated, and the tiniest problem can lead to a major issue down the road.

But fire prevention is important to gain public trust, and investing in safety improvements is worth it, because we need these devices more than ever. Batteries are going to be crucial in efforts to clean up our power grid and the transportation sector.

“I don’t believe the answer is stopping these projects,” Maluf says. “That train has left the station.”

Now read the rest of The Spark

Keeping up with climate

BP Is dropping its target of increasing renewables by 20-fold by 2030. The company is refocusing on fossil fuels after concerns about earnings. Booooo. (Reuters)

This refinery planned to be a hub for alternative jet fuels in the US. Now the project is on shaky ground after the Trump administration has begun trying to claw back funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. (Wired)
→ Alternative jet fuels are one of our 10 Breakthrough Technologies of 2025. As I covered, the fuels will be a challenge to scale, and that’s even more true if federal funding falls through. (MIT Technology Review)

Chinese EVs are growing in popularity in Nigeria. Gas-powered cars are getting more expensive to run, making electric ones attractive, even as much of the country struggles to get consistent access to electricity. (Bloomberg)

EV chargers at federal buildings are being taken out of service—the agency that runs federal buildings says they aren’t “mission critical.” This one boggles my mind—these chargers are already paid for and installed. What a waste. (The Verge)

Congestion pricing that charges drivers entering the busiest parts of Manhattan has cut traffic, and now the program is hitting revenue goals, raising over $48 million in the first month. Expect more drama to come, though, as the Trump administration recently revoked authorization for the plan, and the MTA followed up with a lawsuit. (New York Times)

New skyscrapers are designed to withstand hurricanes, but the buildings may fare poorly in less intense wind storms, according to a new study. (The Guardian)

Ten new battery factories are scheduled to come online this year in the US. The industry is entering an uncertain time, especially with the new administration—will this be a battery boom or a battery bust? (Inside Climate News)

Proposed renewable-energy projects in northern Colombia are being met with opposition from Indigenous communities in the region. The area could generate 15 gigawatts of electricity, but local leaders say that they haven’t been consulted about development. (Associated Press)

This farm in Virginia is testing out multiple methods designed to pull carbon out of the air at once. Spreading rock dust, compost, and biochar on fields can help improve yields and store carbon. (New Scientist)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Feb 21 2025

What’s driving electricity demand? It isn’t just AI and data centers.

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Electricity demand rose by 4.3% in 2024 and will continue to grow at close to 4% annually through 2027, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency.

If that sounds familiar, it may be because there’s been a constant stream of headlines about energy demand recently, largely because of the influx of data centers—especially those needed to power the AI that’s spreading seemingly everywhere. These technologies are sucking up more power from the grid, but they’re just a small part of a much larger story.

What’s actually behind this demand growth is complicated. Much of the increase comes from China, India, and Southeast Asia. Air-conditioning, electric vehicles, and factories all play a role. And of course, we can’t entirely discount the data centers. Here are a few key things to know about global electricity in 2025, and where things are going next.

China, India, and Southeast Asia are the ones to watch.

Between now and 2027, about 85% of electricity demand growth is expected to come from developing and emerging economies. China is an especially major force, having accounted for over half of global electricity demand growth last year.

The influence of even individual sectors in China is staggering. For example, in 2024, about 300 terawatt-hours’ worth of electricity was used just to produce solar modules, batteries, and electric vehicles. That’s as much electricity as Italy uses in a year. And this sector is growing quickly.

A boom in heavy industry, an increase in the number of air conditioners, and a robust electric-vehicle market are all adding to China’s power demand. India and Southeast Asia are also going to have above-average increases in demand, driven by economic growth and increased adoption of air conditioners.

And there’s a lot of growth yet to come, as 600 million people across Africa still don’t have access to reliable electricity.

Data centers are a somewhat minor factor globally, but they can’t be counted out.

According to another IEA projection published last year, data centers are expected to account for less than 10% of global electricity demand growth between now and 2030. That’s less than the expected growth due to other contributors like electric vehicles, air conditioners, and heavy industry.

However, data centers are a major storyline for advanced economies like the US and many countries in Europe. As a group, these nations have largely seen flat or declining electricity demand for the last 15 years, in part because of efficiency improvements. Data centers are reversing that trend.

Take the US, for example. The IEA report points to other research showing that the 10 states hosting the most data center growth saw a 10% increase in electricity demand between 2019 and 2023. Demand in the other 40 states declined by about 3% over the same period.

One caveat here is that nobody knows for sure what’s going to happen with data centers in the future, particularly those needed to run AI. Projections are all over the place, and small changes could drastically alter the amount of energy required for the technology. (See the DeepSeek drama.)

One bit I found interesting here is that China could see data centers emerge as yet another source of growing electricity demand in the future, with demand projected to double between now and 2027 (though, again, it’s all quite uncertain).

What this all means for climate change is complicated.

Growth in electricity demand can be seen as a good thing for our climate. Using a heat pump rather than a natural-gas heating system can help reduce emissions even as it increases electricity use. But as we add demand to the grid, it’s important to remember that in many places, it’s still largely reliant on fossil fuels.

The good news in all this is that there’s enough expansion in renewable and low-emissions electricity sources to cover the growth in demand. The rapid deployment of solar power alone contributes enough energy to cover half the demand growth expected through 2027. Nuclear power is also expected to see new heights soon, with recovery in France, restarts in Japan, and new reactors in China and India adding to a stronger global industry.

However, just adding renewables to meet electricity demand doesn’t automatically pull fossil fuels off the grid; existing coal and natural-gas plants are still chugging along all over the world. To make a dent in emissions, low-carbon sources need to grow fast enough not only to meet new demand, but to replace existing dirtier sources.

It isn’t inherently bad that the grid is growing. More people having air-conditioning and more factories making solar panels are all firmly in the “positive” column, I’d argue. But keeping up with this breakneck pace of demand growth is going to be a challenge—one that could have major effects on our ability to cut emissions.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

Competition is stiff in China’s EV market, so some automakers are pivoting to humanoid robots. With profit margins dropping for electrified vehicles, financial necessity is driving creativity, as my new colleague Caiwei Chen explains in her latest story.

Keeping up with climate

The Trump administration has frozen funds and set hiring restrictions, and that could leave the US vulnerable to wildfire. (ProPublica)

US tariffs on imported steel and aluminum are set to go into effect next month, and they could be a problem for key grid equipment. The metals are used in transformers, which are in short supply. (Heatmap)

A maker of alternative jet fuel will get access to a $1.44 billion loan it was promised earlier this year. The Trump administration is exploring canceling promised financing, but this loan went ahead after a local representative pressured the White House. (Canary Media)

A third-generation oil and gas worker has pivoted to focus on drilling for geothermal systems. This Q&A is a fascinating look at what it might look like for more workers to move from fossil fuels to renewables. (Inside Climate News)

The Trump administration is working to fast-track hundreds of fossil-fuel projects. The US Army Corps of Engineers is speeding up permits using an emergency designation. (New York Times)

Japan’s government is adopting new climate targets. The country aims to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 70% from 2013 levels over the next 15 years and reach net zero by 2050. Expansion of renewables and nuclear power will be key in the plan. (Associated Press)

A funding freeze has caused a whole lot of confusion about the state of federal financing for EV chargers in the US. But there’s still progress on building chargers, both from government funds already committed and from the private sector. (Wired)

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the latest target of the Trump administration’s cuts. NOAA provides weather forecasts, and private industry is reliant on the agency’s data. (Bloomberg)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

App Climate change and energy The Spark

Feb 14 2025

What a major battery fire means for the future of energy storage

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

A few weeks ago, a fire broke out at the Moss Landing Power Plant in California, the world’s largest collection of batteries on the grid. Although the flames were extinguished in a few days, the metaphorical smoke is still clearing.

Some residents in the area have reported health issues that they claim are related to the fire, and some environmental tests revealed pollutants in the water and ground near where the fire burned. One group has filed a lawsuit against the company that owns the site.

In the wake of high-profile fires like Moss Landing, there are very understandable concerns about battery safety. At the same time, as more wind, solar power, and other variable electricity sources come online, large energy storage installations will be even more crucial for the grid.

Let’s catch up on what happened in this fire, what the lingering concerns are, and what comes next for the energy storage industry.

The Moss Landing fire was spotted in the afternoon on January 16, according to local news reports. It started small but quickly spread to a huge chunk of batteries at the plant. Over 1,000 residents were evacuated, nearby roads were closed, and a wider emergency alert warned those nearby to stay indoors.

The fire hit the oldest group of batteries installed at Moss Landing, a 300-megawatt array that came online in 2020. Additional installations bring the total capacity at the site to about 750 megawatts, meaning it can deliver as much energy to the grid as a standard coal-fired power plant for a few hours at a time.

According to a statement that site owner Vistra Energy gave to the New York Times, most of the batteries inside the affected building (the one that houses the 300MW array) burned. However, the company doesn’t have an exact tally, because crews are still prohibited from going inside to do a visual inspection.

This isn’t the first time that batteries at Moss Landing have caught fire—there have been several incidents at the plant since it opened. However, this event was “much more significant” than previous fires, says Dustin Mulvaney, a professor of environmental studies at San Jose State University, who’s studied the plant.

Residents are worried about the potential consequences.The US Environmental Protection Agency monitored the nearby air for hydrogen fluoride, a dangerous gas that can be produced in lithium-ion battery fires, and didn’t detect levels higher than California’s standards. But some early tests detected elevated levels of metals including cobalt, nickel, copper, and manganese in soil around the plant. Tests also detected metals in local drinking water, though at levels considered to be safe.

Citing some of those tests, a group of residents filed a lawsuit against Vistra last week, alleging that the company (along with a few other named defendants) failed to implement adequate safety measures despite previous incidents at the facility. The suit’s legal team includes Erin Brockovich, the activist famous for her work on a 1990s case against Pacific Gas & Electric Company involving contaminated groundwater from oil and gas equipment in California.

The lawsuit, and Brockovich’s involvement in particular, raises a point that I think is worth recognizing here: Technologies that help us address climate change still have the potential to cause harm, and taking that seriously is crucial.

The oil and gas industry has a long history of damaging local environments and putting people in harm’s way. That’s evident in local accidents and long-term pollution, and in the sense that burning fossil fuels drives climate change, which has widespread effects around the world.

Low-carbon energy sources like wind, solar, and batteries don’t add to the global problem of climate change. But many of these projects are industrial sites, and their effects can still be felt by local communities, especially when things go wrong as they did in the Moss Landing fire.

The question now is whether those concerns and lawsuits will affect the industry more broadly. In a news conference, one local official called the fire “a Three Mile Island event for this industry,” referring to the infamous 1979 accident at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant. That was a turning point for nuclear power, after which public support declined sharply.

With the growing number of electric vehicles and batteries for energy storage on the grid, more high-profile fires have hit the news, like last year’s truck fire in LA, the spate of e-bike battery fires in New York City, or one at a French recycling plant last year.

“Battery energy storage systems are complex machines,” Mulvaney says. “Complex systems have a lot of potential failures.”

When it comes to large grid-scale installations, battery safety has already improved since Moss Landing was built in 2020, as Canary Media’s Julian Spector points out in a recent story. One reason is that many newer sites use a different chemistry that’s considered safer. Newer energy storage facilities also tend to isolate batteries better, so small fires won’t spread as dramatically as they did in this case.

There’s still a lot we don’t know about this fire, particularly when it comes to how it started. Learning from the results of the ongoing investigations will be important, because we can only expect to see more batteries coming online in the years ahead.

In 2023, there were roughly 54 gigawatts’ worth of utility-scale batteries on the grid globally. If countries follow through on stated plans for renewables, that number could increase tenfold by the end of the decade.

Energy storage is a key tool in transforming our grid and meeting our climate goals, and the industry is moving quickly. Safety measures need to keep up.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Keeping up with climate

Data centers are expected to be a major source of growth in electricity demand. Being flexible may help utilities meet that demand, according to a new study. (Inside Climate News)

The world’s first lab-grown meat for pets just went on sale in the UK. Meatly is selling limited quantities of its treats, which are a blend of plant-based ingredients and cultivated chicken cells. (The Verge)

Kore Power scrapped plans for a $1.2 billion battery plant in Arizona, but the company isn’t giving up just yet. The new CEO said the new plan is to look for an existing factory that can be transformed into a battery manufacturing facility. (Canary Media)

The auto industry is facing a conundrum: Customers in the US want bigger vehicles, but massive EVs might not make much economic sense. New extended-range electric vehicles that combine batteries and a gas-powered engine that acts as a generator could be the answer. (Heatmap)

Officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were told to search grants for words related to climate change. It’s not clear what comes next. (Axios)

It might be officially time to call it on the 1.5 °C target. Two new studies suggest that the world has already entered into the runway to surpass the point where global temperatures increase 1.5 °C over preindustrial levels. (Bloomberg)

States are confused over a Trump administration order to freeze funding for EV chargers. Some have halted work on projects under the $5 billion program, while others are forging on. (New York Times)

Cold weather can affect the EV batteries. Criticisms likely portray something way worse than the reality, but in any case, here’s how to make the most of your EV in the winter. (Canary Media)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Feb 7 2025

What a return to supersonic flight could mean for climate change

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

As I’ve admitted in this newsletter before, I love few things more than getting on an airplane. I know, it’s a bold statement from a climate reporter because of all the associated emissions, but it’s true. So I’m as intrigued as the next person by efforts to revive supersonic flight.

Last week, Boom Supersonic completed its first supersonic test flight of the XB-1 test aircraft. I watched the broadcast live, and the vibe was infectious, watching the hosts’ anticipation during takeoff and acceleration, and then their celebration once it was clear the aircraft had broken the sound barrier.

And yet, knowing what I know about the climate, the promise of a return to supersonic flight is a little tarnished. We’re in a spot with climate change where we need to drastically cut emissions, and supersonic flight would likely take us in the wrong direction. The whole thing has me wondering how fast is fast enough.

The aviation industry is responsible for about 4% of global warming to date. And right now only about 10% of the global population flies on an airplane in any given year. As incomes rise and flight becomes more accessible to more people, we can expect air travel to pick up, and the associated greenhouse gas emissions to rise with it.

If business continues as usual, emissions from aviation could double by 2050, according to a 2019 report from the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Supersonic flight could very well contribute to this trend, because flying faster requires a whole lot more energy—and consequently, fuel. Depending on the estimate, on a per-passenger basis, a supersonic plane will use somewhere between two and nine times as much fuel as a commercial jet today. (The most optimistic of those numbers comes from Boom, and it compares the company’s own planes to first-class cabins.)

In addition to the greenhouse gas emissions from increased fuel use, additional potential climate effects may be caused by pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur, and black carbon being released at the higher altitudes common in supersonic flight. For more details, check out my latest story.

Boom points to sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) as the solution to this problem. After all, these alternative fuels could potentially cut out all the greenhouse gases associated with burning jet fuel.

The problem is, the market for SAFs is practically embryonic. They made up less than 1% of the jet fuel supply in 2024, and they’re still several times more expensive than fossil fuels. And currently available SAFs tend to cut emissions between 50% and 70%—still a long way from net-zero.

Things will (hopefully) progress in the time it takes Boom to make progress on reviving supersonic flight—the company plans to begin building its full-scale plane, Overture, sometime next year. But experts are skeptical that SAF will be as available, or as cheap, as it’ll need to be to decarbonize our current aviation industry, not to mention to supply an entirely new class of airplanes that burn even more fuel to go the same distance.

The Concorde supersonic jet, which flew from 1969 to 2003, could get from New York to London in a little over three hours. I’d love to experience that flight—moving faster than the speed of sound is a wild novelty, and a quicker flight across the pond could open new options for travel.

One expert I spoke to for my story, after we talked about supersonic flight and how it’ll affect the climate, mentioned that he’s actually trying to convince the industry that planes should actually be slowing down a little bit. By flying just 10% slower, planes could see outsized reductions in emissions.

Technology can make our lives better. But sometimes, there’s a clear tradeoff between how technology can improve comfort and convenience for a select group of people and how it will contribute to the global crisis that is climate change.

I’m not a Luddite, and I certainly fly more than the average person. But I do feel like, maybe we should all figure out how to slow down, or at least not tear toward the worst impacts of climate change faster.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

DeepSeek has crashed onto the scene, upending established ideas about the AI industry. One common claim is that the company’s model could drastically reduce the energy needed for AI. But the story is more complicated than that, as my colleague James O’Donnell covered in this sharp analysis.

Keeping up with climate

Donald Trump announced a 10% tariff on goods from China. Plans for tariffs on Mexico and Canada were announced, then quickly paused, this week as well. Here’s more on what it could mean for folks in the US. (NPR)
→ China quickly hit back with mineral export curbs on materials including tellurium, a key ingredient in some alternative solar panels. (Mining.com)
→ If the tariffs on Mexico and Canada go into effect, they’d hit supply chains for the auto industry, hard. (Heatmap News)

Researchers are scrambling to archive publicly available data from agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Trump administration has directed federal agencies to remove references to climate change. (Inside Climate News)
→ As of Wednesday morning, it appears that live data that tracks carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is no longer accessible on NOAA’s website. (Try for yourself here)

Staffers with Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” entered the NOAA offices on Wednesday morning, inciting concerns about plans for the agency. (The Guardian)

The National Science Foundation, one of the US’s leading funders of science and engineering research, is reportedly planning to lay off between 25% and 50% of its staff. (Politico)

Our roads aren’t built for the conditions being driven by climate change. Warming temperatures and changing weather patterns are hammering roads, driving up maintenance costs. (Bloomberg)

Researchers created a new strain of rice that produces much less methane when grown in flooded fields. The variant was made with traditional crossbreeding. (New Scientist)

Oat milk maker Oatly is trying to ditch fossil fuels in its production process with industrial heat pumps and other electrified technology. But getting away from gas in food and beverage production isn’t easy. (Canary Media)

A new 3D study of the Greenland Ice Sheet reveals that crevasses are expanding faster than previously thought. (Inside Climate News)

In other ice news, an Arctic geoengineering project shut down over concerns for wildlife. The nonprofit project was experimenting with using glass beads to slow melting, but results showed it was a threat to food chains. (New Scientist)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Jan 31 2025

Three questions about the future of US climate tech under Trump

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Donald Trump has officially been in office for just over a week, and the new administration has hit the ground running with a blizzard of executive orders and memos.

Some of the moves could have major effects for climate change and climate technologies—for example, one of the first orders Trump signed signaled his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the major international climate treaty.

The road map for withdrawing from the Paris agreement is clear, but not all the effects of these orders are quite so obvious. There’s a whole lot of speculation about how far these actions reach, which ones might get overturned, and generally what comes next. Here are some of the crucial threads that I’m going to be following.

Will states be able to set their own rules on electric vehicles?

It’s clear that Donald Trump isn’t a fan of electric vehicles. One of the executive orders issued on his first day in office promised to eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate.”

The federal government under Biden didn’t actually have an EV mandate in place—rather, Trump is targeting national support programs, including subsidies that lower the cost of EVs for drivers and support building public chargers. But that’s just the beginning, because the executive order will go after states that have set their own rules on EVs.

While the US Environmental Protection Agency does set some rules around EVs through what are called tailpipe standards, last year California was granted a waiver that allows the state to set its own, stricter rules. The state now requires that all vehicles sold there must be zero-emissions by 2035. More than a dozen states quickly followed suit, setting a target to transition to zero-emissions vehicles within the next decade. That commitment was a major signal to automakers that there will be demand for EVs, and a lot of it, soon.

Trump appears to be coming after that waiver, and with it California’s right to set its own targets on EVs. We’ll likely see court battles over this, and experts aren’t sure how it’s going to shake out.

What will happen to wind projects?

Wind energy was one of the most explicit targets for Trump on the campaign trail and during his first few days in office. In one memo, the new administration paused all federal permits, leases, and loans for all offshore and onshore wind projects.

This doesn’t just affect projects on federal lands or waters—nearly all wind projects typically require federal permits, so this could have a wide effect.

Even if the order is temporary or doesn’t hold up in court, it could be enough to chill investment in a sector that’s already been on shaky ground. As I reported last year, rising costs and slow timelines were already throwing offshore wind projects off track in the US. Investment has slowed since I published that story, and now, with growing political opposition, things could get even rockier.

One major question is how much this will slow down existing projects, like the Lava Ridge Wind Project in Idaho, which got the green light from the Biden administration before he left office. As one source told the Washington Post, the new administration may try to go after leases and permits that have already been issued, but “there may be insufficient authority to do so.”

What about the money?

In an executive order last week, the Trump administration called for a pause on handing out the funds that are legally set aside under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. That includes hundreds of billions of dollars for climate research and infrastructure.

This week, a memo from the White House called for a wider pause on federal grants and loans. This goes way beyond climate spending and could affect programs like Medicaid. There’s been chaos since that was first reported; nobody seems to agree on what exactly will be affected or how long the pause was supposed to last, and as of Tuesday evening, a federal judge had blocked that order.

In any case, all these efforts to pause, slow, or stop federal spending will be a major source of fighting going forward. As for effects on climate technology, I think the biggest question is how far the new administration can and will go to block spending that’s already been designated by Congress. There could be political consequences—most funds from the Inflation Reduction Act have gone to conservative-leaning states.

As I wrote just after the election in November, Donald Trump’s return to office means a sharp turn for the US on climate policy, and we’re seeing that start to play out very quickly. I’ll be following it all, but I’d love to hear from you. What do you most want to know more about? What questions do you have? If you work in the climate sector, how are you seeing your job affected? You can email me at casey.crownhart@technologyreview.com, message me on Bluesky, or reach me on Signal: @casey.131.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

DeepSeek has stormed onto the AI scene. The company released a new reasoning model, called DeepSeek R1, which it claims can surpass the performance of OpenAI’s ChatGPT o1. The model appears to be incredibly efficient, which upends the idea that huge amounts of computing power, and energy, are needed to drive the AI revolution.

For more, check out this story on the company and its model from my colleague Caiwei Chen, and this look at what it means for the AI industry and its energy claims from James O’Donnell.

Keeping up with climate

A huge surge in clean energy caused China’s carbon emissions to level off in 2024. Whether the country’s emissions peak and begin to fall for good depends on what wins in a race between clean-energy additions and growth in energy demand. (Carbon Brief)

In a bit of good news, heat pumps just keep getting hotter. The appliances outsold gas furnaces in the US last year by a bigger margin than ever. (Canary Media)
→ Here’s everything you need to know about heat pumps and how they work. (MIT Technology Review)

People are seeking refuge from floods in Kentucky’s old mountaintop mines. Decades ago, the mines were a cheap source of resources but devastated local ecosystems. Now people are moving in. (New York Times)

An Australian company just raised $20 million to use AI to search for key minerals. Earth AI has already discovered significant deposits of palladium, gold, and molybdenum. (Heatmap News)

Some research suggests a key ocean current system is slowing down, but a new study adds to the case that there’s no cause to panic … yet. The new work suggests that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, hasn’t shown long-term weakening over the past 60 years. (Washington Post)
→ Efforts to observe and understand the currents have shown they’re weirder and more unpredictable than expected. (MIT Technology Review)

Floating solar panels could be a major resource in US energy. A new report finds that federal reservoirs could hold enough floating solar to produce nearly 1,500 terawatt-hours of electricity, enough to power 100 million homes each year. (Canary Media)

What sparked the LA wildfires is still a mystery, but AI is hunting for clues. Better understanding of what causes fires could be key in efforts to stop future blazes. (Grist)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

App Climate change and energy The Spark

Jan 24 2025

Why the next energy race is for underground hydrogen

It might sound like something straight out of the 19th century, but one of the most cutting-edge areas in energy today involves drilling deep underground to hunt for materials that can be burned for energy. The difference is that this time, instead of looking for fossil fuels, the race is on to find natural deposits of hydrogen.

Hydrogen is already a key ingredient in the chemical industry and could be used as a greener fuel in industries from aviation and transoceanic shipping to steelmaking. Today, the gas needs to be manufactured, but there’s some evidence that there are vast deposits underground.

I’ve been thinking about underground resources a lot this week, since I’ve been reporting a story about a new startup, Addis Energy. The company is looking to use subsurface rocks, and the conditions down there, to produce another useful chemical: ammonia. In an age of lab-produced breakthroughs, it feels like something of a regression to go digging for resources, but looking underground could help meet energy demand while also addressing climate change.

It’s rare that hydrogen turns up in oil and gas operations, and for decades, the conventional wisdom has been that there aren’t large deposits of the gas underground. Hydrogen molecules are tiny, after all, so even if the gas was forming there, the assumption was that it would just leak out.

However, there have been somewhat accidental discoveries of hydrogen over the decades, in abandoned mines or new well sites. There are reports of wells that spewed colorless gas, or flames that burned gold. And as people have looked more intentionally for hydrogen, they’ve started to find it.

As it turns out, hydrogen tends to build up in very different rocks from those that host oil and gas deposits. While fossil-fuel prospecting tends to focus on softer rocks, like organic-rich shale, hydrogen seems most plentiful in iron-rich rocks like olivine. The gas forms when chemical reactions at elevated temperature and pressure underground pull water apart. (There’s also likely another mechanism that forms hydrogen underground, called radiolysis, where radioactive elements emit radiation that can split water.)

Some research has put the potential amount of hydrogen available at around a trillion tons—plenty to feed our demand for centuries, even if we ramp up use of the gas.

The past few years have seen companies spring up around the world to try to locate and tap these resources. There’s an influx in Australia, especially the southern part of the country, which seems to have conditions that are good for making hydrogen. One startup, Koloma, has raised over $350 million to aid its geologic hydrogen exploration.

There are so many open questions for this industry, including how much hydrogen is actually going to be accessible and economical to extract. It’s not even clear how best to look for the gas today; researchers and companies are borrowing techniques and tools from the oil and gas industry, but there could be better ways.

It’s also unknown how this could affect climate change. Hydrogen itself may not warm the planet, but it can contribute indirectly to global warming by extending the lifetime of other greenhouse gases. It’s also often found with methane, a super-powerful greenhouse gas that could do major harm if it leaks out of operations at a significant level.

There’s also the issue of transportation: Hydrogen isn’t very dense, and it can be difficult to store and move around. Deposits that are far away from the final customers could face high costs that might make the whole endeavor uneconomical.

But this whole area is incredibly exciting, and researchers are working to better understand it. Some are looking to expand the potential pool of resources by pumping water underground to stimulate hydrogen production from rocks that wouldn’t naturally produce the gas.

There’s something fascinating to me about using the playbook of the oil and gas industry to develop an energy source that could actually help humanity combat climate change. It could be a strategic move to address energy demand, since a lot of expertise has accumulated over the roughly 150 years that we’ve been digging up fossil fuels.

After all, it’s not digging that’s the problem—it’s emissions.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

Donald Trump officially took office on Monday and signed a flurry of executive orders. Here are a few of the most significant ones for climate:

Trump announced his intention to once again withdraw from the Paris agreement. After a one-year waiting period, the world’s largest economy will officially leave the major international climate treaty. (New York Times)

The president also signed an order that pauses lease sales for offshore wind power projects in federal waters. It’s not clear how much the office will be able to slow projects that already have their federal permits. (Associated Press)

Another executive order, titled “Unleashing American Energy,” broadly signals a wide range of climate and energy moves.
→ One section ends the “EV mandate.” The US government doesn’t have any mandates around EVs, but this bit is a signal of the administration’s intent to roll back policies and funding that support adoption of these vehicles. There will almost certainly be court battles. (Wired)
→ Another section pauses the disbursement of tens of billions of dollars for climate and energy. The spending was designated by Congress in two of the landmark laws from the Biden administration, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. Again, experts say we can likely expect legal fights. (Canary Media)

Keeping up with climate

The Chinese automaker BYD built more electric vehicles in 2024 than Tesla did. The data signals a global shift to cheaper EVs and the continued dominance of China in the EV market. (Washington Post)

A pair of nuclear reactors in South Carolina could get a second chance at life. Construction halted at the VC Summer plant in 2017, $9 billion into the project. Now the site’s owner wants to sell. (Wall Street Journal)

→ Existing reactors are more in-demand than ever, as I covered in this story about what’s next for nuclear power. (MIT Technology Review)

In California, charging depots for electric trucks are increasingly choosing to cobble together their own power rather than waiting years to connect to the grid. These solar- and wind-powered microgrids could help handle broader electricity demand. (Canary Media)

Wildfires in Southern California are challenging even wildlife that have adapted to frequent blazes. As fires become more frequent and intense, biologists worry about animals like mountain lions. (Inside Climate News)

Experts warn that ash from the California wildfires could be toxic, containing materials like lead and arsenic. (Associated Press)

Burning wood for power isn’t necessary to help the UK meet its decarbonization goals, according to a new analysis. Biomass is a controversial green power source that critics say contributes to air pollution and harms forests. (The Guardian)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

App Climate change and energy The Spark

Jan 18 2025

Interest in nuclear power is surging. Is it enough to build new reactors?

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Lately, the vibes have been good for nuclear power. Public support is building, and public and private funding have made the technology more economical in key markets. There’s also a swell of interest from major companies looking to power their data centers.

These shifts have been great for existing nuclear plants. We’re seeing efforts to boost their power output, extend the lifetime of old reactors, and even reopen facilities that have shut down. That’s good news for climate action, because nuclear power plants produce consistent electricity with very low greenhouse-gas emissions.

I covered all these trends in my latest story, which digs into what’s next for nuclear power in 2025 and beyond. But as I spoke with experts, one central question kept coming up for me: Will all of this be enough to actually get new reactors built?

To zoom in on some of these trends, let’s take a look at the US, which has the largest fleet of nuclear reactors in the world (and the oldest, with an average age of over 42 years).

In recent years we’ve seen a steady improvement in public support for nuclear power in the US. Today, around 56% of Americans support more nuclear power, up from 43% in 2020, according to a Pew R esearch poll.

The economic landscape has also shifted in favor of the technology. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 includes tax credits specifically for operating nuclear plants, aimed at keeping them online. Qualifying plants can receive up to $15 per megawatt-hour, provided they meet certain labor requirements. (For context, in 2021, its last full year of operation, Palisades in Michigan generated over 7 million megawatt-hours.)

Big Tech has also provided an economic boost for the industry—tech giants like Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Amazon are all making deals to get in on nuclear.

These developments have made existing (or recently closed) nuclear power plants a hot commodity. Plants that might have been candidates for decommissioning just a few years ago are now candidates for license extension. Plants that have already shut down are seeing a potential second chance at life.

There’s also the potential to milk more power out of existing facilities through changes called uprates, which basically allow existing facilities to produce more energy by tweaking existing instruments and power generation systems. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved uprates totaling six gigawatts over the past two decades. That’s a small but certainly significant fraction of the roughly 97 gigawatts of nuclear on the grid today.

Any reactors kept online, reopened, or ramped up spell good news for emissions. But expanding the nuclear fleet in the US will require not just making the most of existing assets, but building new reactors.

We’ll probably also need new reactors just to maintain the current fleet, since so many reactors are scheduled to be retired in the next couple of decades. Will the enthusiasm for keeping old plants running also translate into building new ones?

In much of the world (China being a notable exception), building new nuclear capacity has historically been expensive and slow. It’s easy to point at Plant Vogtle in the US: The third and fourth reactors at that facility began construction in 2009. They were originally scheduled to start up in 2016 and 2017, at a cost of around $14 billion. They actually came online in 2023 and 2024, and the total cost of the project was north of $30 billion.

Some advanced technology has promised to fix the problems in nuclear power. Small modular reactors could help cut cost and construction times, and next-generation reactors promise safety and efficiency improvements that could translate to cheaper, quicker construction. Realistically, though, getting these first-of-their-kind projects off the ground will still require a lot of money and a sustained commitment to making them happen. “The next four years are make or break for advanced nuclear,” says Jessica Lovering, cofounder at the Good Energy Collective, a policy research organization that advocates for the use of nuclear energy.

There are a few factors that could help the progress we’ve seen recently in nuclear extend to new builds. For one, public support from the US Department of Energy includes not only tax credits but public loans and grants for demonstration projects, which can be a key stepping stone to commercial plants that generate electricity for the grid.

Changes to the regulatory process could also help. The Advance Act, passed in 2024, aims at sprucing up the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the hopes of making the approval process more efficient (currently, it can take up to five years to complete).

“If you can see the NRC really start to modernize toward a more efficient, effective, and predictable regulator, it really helps the case for a lot of these commercial projects, because the NRC will no longer be seen as this barrier to innovation,” says Patrick White, research director at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit think tank. We should start to see changes from that legislation this year, though what happens could depend on the Trump administration.

The next few years are crucial for next-generation nuclear technology, and how the industry fares between now and the end of the decade could be very telling when it comes to how big a role this technology plays in our longer-term efforts to decarbonize energy.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

Devastating wildfires have been ravaging Southern California. Here’s a roundup of some key stories about the blazes.

→ Strong winds have continued this week, bringing with them the threat of new fires. Here’s a page with live updates on the latest. (Washington Post)

→ Officials are scouring the spot where the deadly Palisades fire started to better understand how it was sparked. (New York Times)

→ Climate change didn’t directly start the fires, but global warming did contribute to how intensely they burned and how quickly they spread. (Axios)

→The LA fires show that controlled burns aren’t a cure-all when it comes to preventing wildfires. (Heatmap News)

→ Seawater is a last resort when it comes to fighting fires, since it’s corrosive and can harm the environment when dumped on a blaze. (Wall Street Journal)

Keeping up with climate

US emissions cuts stalled last year, despite strong growth in renewables. The cause: After staying flat or falling for two decades, electricity demand is rising. (New York Times)

With Donald Trump set to take office in the US next week, many are looking to state governments as a potential seat of climate action. Here’s what to look for in states including Texas, California, and Massachusetts. (Inside Climate News)

The US could see as many as 80 new gas-fired power plants built by 2030. The surge comes as demand for power from data centers, including those powering AI, is ballooning. (Financial Times)

Global sales of EVs and plug-in hybrids were up 25% in 2024 from the year before. China, the world’s largest EV market, is a major engine behind the growth. (Reuters)

A massive plant to produce low-emissions steel could be in trouble. Steelmaker SSAB has pulled out of talks on federal funding for a plant in Mississippi. (Canary Media)

Some solar panel companies have turned to door-to-door sales. Things aren’t always so sunny for those involved. (Wired)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Jan 12 2025

2025 is a critical year for climate tech

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

I love the fresh start that comes with a new year. And one thing adding a boost to my January is our newest list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies.

In case you haven’t browsed this year’s list or a previous version, it features tech that’s either breaking into prominence or changing society. We typically recognize a range of items running from early-stage research to consumer technologies that folks are getting their hands on now.

As I was looking over the finished list this week, I was struck by something: While there are some entries from other fields that are three or even five years away, all the climate items are either newly commercially available or just about to be. It’s certainly apt, because this year in particular seems to be bringing a new urgency to the fight against climate change. We’re facing global political shifts and entering the second half of the decade. It’s time for these climate technologies to grow up and get out there.

Green steel

Steel is a crucial material for buildings and vehicles, and making it accounts for around 8% of global greenhouse-gas emissions. New manufacturing methods could be a huge part of cleaning up heavy industry, and they’re just on the cusp of breaking into the commercial market.

One company, called Stegra, is close to starting up the world’s first commercial green steel plant, which will make the metal using hydrogen from renewable sources. (You might know this company by its former name, H2 Green Steel, as we included it on our 2023 list of Climate Tech Companies to Watch.)

When I first started following Stegra a few years ago, its plans for a massive green steel plant felt incredibly far away. Now the company says it’s on track to produce steel at the factory by next year.

The biggest challenge in this space is money. Building new steel plants is expensive—Stegra has raised almost $7 billion. And the company’s product will be more expensive than conventional material, so it’ll need to find customers willing to pay up (so far, it has).

There are other efforts to clean up steel that will all face similar challenges around money, including another play in Sweden called Hybrit and startups like Boston Metal and Electra, which use different processes. Read more about green steel, and the potential obstacles it faces as we enter a new phase of commercialization, in this short blurb and in this longer feature about Stegra.

Cow burp remedies

Humans love burgers and steaks and milk and cheese, so we raise a whole bunch of cows. The problem is, these animals are among a group with a funky digestion process that produces a whole lot of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas). A growing number of companies are trying to develop remedies that help cut down on their methane emissions.

This is one of my favorite items on the list this year (and definitely my favorite illustration—at the very least, check out this blurb to enjoy the art).

There’s already a commercially available option right now: a feed additive called Bovaer from DSM-Firmenich that the company says can cut methane emissions by 30% in dairy cattle, and more in beef cattle. Startups are right behind with their own products, some of which could prove even better.

A key challenge all these companies face moving forward is acceptance: from regulatory agencies, farmers, and consumers. Some companies still need to go through lengthy and often expensive tests to show that their products are safe and effective. They’ll also need to persuade farmers to get on board. Some might also face misinformation that’s causing some consumers to protest these new additives.

Cleaner jet fuel

While planes crisscrossing the world are largely powered by fossil fuels, some alternatives are starting to make their appearance in aircraft.

New fuels, today mostly made from waste products like used cooking oil, can cut down emissions from air travel. In 2024, they made up about 0.5% of the fuel supply. But new policies could help these fuels break into new prominence, and new options are helping to widen their supply.

The key challenge here is scale. Global demand for jet fuel was about 100 billion gallons last year, so we’ll need a whole lot of volume from new producers to make a dent in aviation’s emissions.

To illustrate the scope, take LanzaJet’s new plant, opened in 2024. It’s the first commercial-scale facility that can make jet fuel with ethanol, and it has a capacity of about 9 million gallons annually. So we would need about 10,000 of those plants to meet global demand—a somewhat intimidating prospect. Read more in my write-up here.

From cow burps to jet fuel to green steel, there’s a huge range of tech that’s entering a new stage of deployment and will need to face new challenges in the next few years. We’ll be watching it all—thanks for coming along.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

EVs are (mostly) set for solid growth in 2025, as my colleague James Temple covers in his newest story. Check it out for more about what’s next for electric vehicles, including what we might expect from a new administration in the US and how China is blowing everyone else out of the water.

Keeping up with climate

Winter used to be the one time of year that California didn’t have to worry about wildfires. A rapidly spreading fire in the southern part of the state is showing that’s not the case anymore. (Bloomberg)

Tesla’s annual sales decline for the first time in over a decade. Deliveries were lower than expected for the final quarter of the year. (Associated Press)

Meanwhile, in China, EVs are set to overtake traditional cars in sales years ahead of schedule. Forecasts suggest that EVs could account for 50% of car sales this year. (Financial Times)

KoBold metals raised $537 million in funding to use AI to mine copper. The funding pushes the startup’s valuation to $2.96 billion. (TechCrunch)
→ Read this profile of the company from 2021 for more. (MIT Technology Review)

We finally have the final rules for a tax credit designed to boost hydrogen in the US. The details matter here. (Heatmap)

China just approved the world’s most expensive infrastructure project. The hydroelectric dam could produce enough power for 300 million people, triple the capacity of the current biggest dam. (Economist)

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter installed 32 solar panels on the White House’s roof. Although they came down just a few years later, the panels lived multiple lives afterward. I really enjoyed reading about this small piece of Carter’s legacy in the wake of his passing. (New York Times)

An open pit mine in California is the only one in the US mining and extracting rare earth metals including neodymium and praseodymium. This is a fascinating look at the site. (IEEE Spectrum)
→ I wrote about efforts to recycle rare earth metals, and what it means for the long-term future of metal supply, in a feature story last year. (MIT Technology Review)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Dec 13 2024

China banned exports of a few rare minerals to the US. Things could get messier.

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

I’ve thought more about gallium and germanium over the last week than I ever have before (and probably more than anyone ever should).

As you may already know, China banned the export of those materials to the US last week and placed restrictions on others. The move is just the latest drama in escalating trade tensions between the two countries.

While the new export bans could have significant economic consequences, this might be only the beginning. China is a powerhouse, and not just in those niche materials—it’s also a juggernaut in clean energy, and particularly in battery supply chains. So what comes next could have significant consequences for EVs and climate action more broadly.

A super-quick catch-up on the news here: The Biden administration recently restricted exports of chips and other technology that could help China develop advanced semiconductors. Also, president-elect Donald Trump has floated all sorts of tariffs on Chinese goods.

Apparently in response to some or all of this, China banned the export of gallium, germanium, antimony, and superhard materials used in manufacturing, and said it may further restrict graphite sales. The materials are all used for both military and civilian technologies, and significantly, gallium and germanium are used in semiconductors.

It’s a ramp-up from last July, when China placed restrictions on gallium and germanium exports after enduring years of restrictions by the US and its Western allies on cutting-edge technology. (For more on the details of China’s most recent move, including potential economic impacts, check out the full coverage from my colleague James Temple.)

What struck me about this news is that this could be only the beginning, because China is central to many of the supply chains snaking around the globe.

This is no accident—take gallium as an example. The metal is a by-product of aluminum production from bauxite ore. China, as the world’s largest aluminum producer, certainly has a leg up to be a major player in the niche material. But other countries could produce gallium, and I’m sure more will. China has a head start because it invested in gallium separation and refining technologies.

A similar situation exists in the battery world. China is a dominant player all over the supply chain for lithium-ion batteries—not because it happens to have the right metals on its shores (it doesn’t), but because it’s invested in extraction and processing technologies.

Take lithium, a crucial component in those batteries. China has around 8% of the world’s lithium reserves but processes about 58% percent of the world’s lithium supply. The situation is similar for other key battery metals. Nickel that’s mined in Indonesia goes to China for processing, and the same goes for cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Over the past two decades, China has thrown money, resources, and policy behind electric vehicles. Now China leads the world in EV registrations, many of the largest EV makers are Chinese companies, and the country is home to a huge chunk of the supply chain for the vehicles and their batteries.

As the world begins a shift toward technologies like EVs, it’s becoming clear just how dominant China’s position is in many of the materials crucial to building that tech.

Lithium prices have dropped by 80% over the past year, and while part of the reason is a slowdown in EV demand, another part is that China is oversupplying lithium, according to US officials. By flooding the market and causing prices to drop, China could make it tougher for other lithium processors to justify sticking around in the business.

The new graphite controls from China could wind up affecting battery markets, too. Graphite is crucial for lithium-ion batteries, which use the material in their anodes. It’s still not clear whether the new bans will affect battery materials or just higher-purity material that’s used in military applications, according to reporting from Carbon Brief.

To this point, China hasn’t specifically banned exports of key battery materials, and it’s not clear exactly how far the country would go. Global trade politics are delicate and complicated, and any move that China makes in battery supply chains could wind up coming back to hurt the country’s economy.

But we could be entering into a new era of material politics. Further restrictions on graphite, or moves that affect lithium, nickel, or copper, could have major ripple effects around the world for climate technology, because batteries are key not only for electric vehicles, but increasingly for our power grids.

While it’s clear that tensions are escalating, it’s still unclear what’s going to happen next. The vibes, at best, are uncertain, and this sort of uncertainty is exactly why so many folks in technology are so focused on how to diversify global supply chains. Otherwise, we may find out just how tangled those supply chains really are, and what happens when you yank on threads that run through the center of them.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

Each year we release a list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies, and it’s nearly time for the 2025 edition. But before we announce the picks, here are a few things that didn’t make the cut.

A couple of interesting ones on the cutting-room floor here, including eVTOLs, electric aircraft that can take off and land like helicopters. For more on why the runway is looking pretty long for electric planes (especially ones with funky ways to move through the skies), check out this story from last year.

Keeping up with climate

Denmark received no bids in its latest offshore wind auction. It’s a disappointing result for the birthplace of offshore wind power. (Reuters)

Surging methane emissions could be the sign of a concerning shift for the climate. A feedback loop of emissions from the Arctic and a slowdown in how the powerful greenhouse gas breaks down could spell trouble. (Inside Climate News)

Battery prices are dropping faster than expected. Costs for lithium-ion packs just saw their steepest drop since 2017. (Electrek)

This fusion startup is rethinking how to configure its reactors by floating powerful magnets in the middle of the chamber. This sounds even more like science fiction than most other approaches to fusion. (IEEE Spectrum)

The US plans to put monarch butterflies on a list of threatened species. Temperature shifts brought on by climate change could wreak havoc with the insects’ migration. (Associated Press)

Sources close to Elon Musk say he’s undergone quite a shift on climate change, morphing from “environmental crusader to critic of dire climate predictions.” (Washington Post)

Google has a $20 billion plan to build data centers and clean power together. “Bring your own power” is an interesting idea, but not a tested prospect just yet. (Canary Media)

The Franklin Fire in Los Angeles County sparked Monday evening and quickly grew into a major blaze. At the heart of the fire’s rapid spread: dry weather and Santa Ana winds. (Scientific American)

Places in the US that are most at risk for climate disasters are also most at risk for insurance hikes. Check out these great data visualizations on insurance and climate change. (The Guardian)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Dec 8 2024

Alternative meat could help the climate. Will anyone eat it?

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Last week, we celebrated Thanksgiving here in the US, and I had hearty helpings of ham and turkey alongside my mashed potatoes and green bean casserole.

Meat is often the star on our plates, but our love of animal-based foods is a problem for the climate. Depending on how you count it up, livestock accounts for somewhere between 10% and 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

A growing number of alternative foods seek to mimic or replace options that require raising and slaughtering animals. These include plant-based products and newly approved cultivated (or lab-grown) meats. An increasing number of companies are even raising microbes in the lab in the hopes that we’ll add them to the menu, as I covered in a story this week.

But as one of my colleagues always puts it when I tell him about some alternative food product, the key question is, will anyone eat it?

Food might just be one of the trickiest climate problems to solve. Technically, none of us has to be eating any of the highest-emissions foods—like beef—that are worst for the climate. But what we eat is deeply personal, and it’s often tied up with our culture and our social lives. Many people want hamburgers at a barbecue and nice steak dinners.

The challenge of our food system’s climate impact is only getting more tricky: richer countries tend to eat more meat, and so as populations grow and the standard of living rises around the world, we’re going to see emissions from livestock production rise, too.

In an effort to combat that trend, alternative food products aim to deliver foods similar to the ones we know and love with less harmful effects on the climate. Plant-based options like those from Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have exploded in recent years, finding their way into supermarkets and even onto the menus of major fast-food brands like Burger King.

The problem is, a lot of alternative products have been struggling lately. Unit sales of meat alternatives in the US were down by 26% between 2021 and 2023, and fewer households are buying plant-based alternative meat options, according to a report from the Good Food Institute. Consumers say that alternatives still aren’t up to par on taste and price, two key factors that determine what people decide to eat.

So companies are racing to invent better products. I’ve spent a lot of time covering cultivated (or lab-grown) meats. To make these products, animal cells are grown in the lab and processed into things like chicken nuggets. Two companies got approval to sell cultivated chicken in the US in 2023, and we’ve seen both offer their products in limited runs at high-end restaurants.

But these products are still not quite the same thing as the meat we’re used to. When I tried a burger that contained cells grown in a lab, it was similar to plant-based ones that have a softer texture than I’m used to. Chicken from Upside Foods, served at a Michelin-starred restaurant, had similar textural differences. And these products are still only available at very small scales, if at all, and they’re expensive.

One key issue that comes up again and again as I report on these new products is what to call them. The industry strongly prefers cultivated, not “lab-grown.” Probably better to not remind people that they’re eating something grown in vats in a laboratory. As the companies that make these products often point out, we don’t typically use this sort of language for the animal-based products we’re used to. You’d never find the phrase “slaughtered baby cow” on a menu, just “veal.”

I was thinking about this issue of language and marketing again recently as I reported a story about a company looking to grow bacteria, dry it, and sell it to feed animals or people. I found myself a little weirded out by the prospect of dried microbe powder finding its way into my diet. But I don’t have a problem drinking wine or eating cheese, two products that rely on microbes and a fermentation process to exist.

Maybe LanzaTech will come up with a marketing plan that makes their microbe powder an easy addition to my Thanksgiving table. Ultimately though, no matter how well they’re marketed, I’m not sure how much we can rely on alternative products to solve the climate challenge that is our food system.

As is often the case when it comes to addressing climate change, we’re going to need not only some behavioral changes, but also technical solutions like cattle burp pills and new fertilizer options, as well as policy to help nudge our food system in the right direction.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Keeping up with climate

China announced it would ban the export to the US of several rare minerals that are crucial in technology like semiconductors. The move follows efforts by the US to shift supply chains away from China. (New York Times)

Donald Trump has pledged to ramp up tariffs on Chinese goods, while other nations around the world have already put such policies in place. (Rest of World)

Australia is on track to meet its 2030 emissions target. The country’s climate pollution is projected to fall more than 42% below 2005 levels by the end of the decade. (Bloomberg)

Talks to form an international plastic treaty fell apart this week. Some countries favored cutting down plastic production, while others, including oil-rich nations, pushed back. (Washington Post)

The US Department of Energy announced a nearly $7 billion loan to Stellantis and Samsung for two battery factories that will supply batteries for EVs. (New York Times)
→ That follows a $6.6 billion loan to Rivian to help the company build a stalled factory in Georgia. (Associated Press)
→ The Biden administration is racing to lock in loans and safeguard them against rollbacks before Donald Trump takes office in January. (E&E News)

California could increase use of ethanol, a move the state says could lower gas prices. But experts warn that expanded use of ethanol made from corn can have negative consequences for climate progress and the environment. (Inside Climate News)

Norway’s government is blocking plans to mine the sea bed. There were plans to begin offering permits in the first half of 2025, and preparations will continue during the suspension. (Reuters)
→ These deep-sea “potatoes” could be the future of mining for battery materials. (MIT Technology Review)

A decade ago, sea surface temperatures in the Pacific shot up in a dramatic marine heat wave. Now, scientists are looking for clues in that event to understand what rising temperatures will mean for the ocean. (New York Times)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Keeping up with climate

China, India, and Southeast Asia are the ones to watch.

Data centers are a somewhat minor factor globally, but they can’t be counted out.

What this all means for climate change is complicated.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Will states be able to set their own rules on electric vehicles?

What will happen to wind projects?

What about the money?

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Green steel

Cow burp remedies

Cleaner jet fuel

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Keeping up with climate